DCC 2020 entry totals and discussion

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
DCC 2020 entries

Banks:
1st Round—-452 players
2nd Round—343 players

One Pocket:
1st Round—-365 players
2nd Round—261 players

9 Ball:
1st Round—-408 players
2nd Round—312 players



All tournaments: $25,000 Added
@ $160 entry fee
@ $100 buy back
 
Last edited:

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
I guess they need to keep raising the entries to find the sweet spot to make it manageable.

If you have to get rid of dead money to do it, I guess that’s how it needs to be at a place without the room to grow.

So far:
Banks—109 players did not buy back
One Pocket—104 players did not buy back
9 Ball——-96 players did not buy back

That’s $10,900 / $10,400 / $9,600 in lost revenue that goes towards Master of the Table awards and profit. It’s quite a lot to lose.
 
Last edited:

powerball

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
58
You said they lost that buy back money, I say, did they? Your remark would suggest that everyone bought back in prior years.
 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
You said they lost that buy back money, I say, did they? Your remark would suggest that everyone bought back in prior years.
Well, if they didn’t buy back, then it is lost money, isn’t it?

What you want is everyone buying back, don’t you?

I know everyone didn’t buy back over the years so what would you do to get that money in the pot?


More money in the pot is good.
 

sneakynito

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
468
I saw an interview with Greg Sullivan a few years back where he said they count on those people to not buy back in or they would never finish the tournament. And I think that's a big part of why they don't do double elimination also.
I don't think it's lost money. It's a balancing act. If they doubled the cost of entry and made it double elimination a lot more people would probably shy away.
 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
I saw an interview with Greg Sullivan a few years back where he said they count on those people to not buy back in or they would never finish the tournament. And I think that's a big part of why they don't do double elimination also.
I don't think it's lost money. It's a balancing act. If they doubled the cost of entry and made it double elimination a lot more people would probably shy away.
Can you refer to that interview? I’m not going to believe that because...

It’s the same total amount of matches whether it’s buy backs or double elimination.

Plus, double elimination runs faster than a buy back tournament, it’s laid out all the way to the end right from the beginning.


So the people placing “In the money” for the tournament wouldn’t want more money in their pockets??
 

sneakynito

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
468
Can you refer to that interview? I’m not going to believe that because...

It’s the same total amount of matches whether it’s buy backs or double elimination.

Plus, double elimination runs faster than a buy back tournament, it’s laid out all the way to the end right from the beginning.


So the people placing “In the money” for the tournament wouldn’t want more money in their pockets??
"Cause If everyone bought back in this tournament, I couldn't do it. I mean we got too many people getting in. Ya know I don't have time and enough tables and a big enough place to run the matches." - Greg Sullivan



Really cool interview. His philosophy is that by doing the buy back the every day player is enticed to at least play. So he made the spectators players. He considers it one of the most successful things he's done to make the tournament work.

Here's the link cut to where he talks about the buy back. But the rest is in interesting listen.

 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
"Cause If everyone bought back in this tournament, I couldn't do it. I mean we got too many people getting in. Ya know I don't have time and enough tables and a big enough place to run the matches." - Greg Sullivan



Really cool interview. His philosophy is that by doing the buy back the every day player is enticed to at least play. So he made the spectators players. He considers it one of the most successful things he's done to make the tournament work.

Here's the link cut to where he talks about the buy back. But the rest is in interesting listen.

I listened to the whole interview. It was pretty good. To be fair, it was from 2014 (6 years ago).

In the beginning of DCC he needed/wanted bodies. It was at the ExWest and had enough hotel rooms and pool tables.

Now, at the time of that interview, it’s at the casino where there’s neither enough pool tables or hotel rooms.

You’re getting too many people and they’re all bitching and complaining so what do you need to do to make it manageable?

Looks like they finally have a solution for too many players at the casino site. Raise the entries and the buybacks (something he never wanted to do) so it is manageable.

He thought in 3 years (by 2017) all Pro tournaments would be on 10 fts also.


It’s too bad he fell by the wayside of what he originally wanted to do.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
784
It's just a function of time and space. Derby City started out as a gambler's jamboree. The tournament was just an excuse to get together. You could see that by the prize fund. That's why the entry fees were so low. Let everyone play. Charge less for banks than a spectator pass. Make all the spectators participants. But then the tournaments got so big they were taking up all the action tables. So this year, he raised the entry fees to lower the numbers of players so he could finish on time and the pros that play could still make their nut for the nine days, and those that wanted to play each other in action matches would still have tables. Don't get me wrong. He'd love to have double the space, but it doesn't exist. He's searched all over America for the right space. It doesn't exist. So he makes the best of Louisville, which is also next to his factory so he can use all his help during the tournament and they sleep in their own beds and don't need to travel across the country. If you take the whole tournament into consideration, who has every done a tournament so well?
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
4,381
I listened to the whole interview. It was pretty good. To be fair, it was from 2014 (6 years ago).

In the beginning of DCC he needed/wanted bodies. It was at the ExWest and had enough hotel rooms and pool tables.

Now, at the time of that interview, it’s at the casino where there’s neither enough pool tables or hotel rooms.

You’re getting too many people and they’re all bitching and complaining so what do you need to do to make it manageable?

Looks like they finally have a solution for too many players at the casino site. Raise the entries and the buybacks (something he never wanted to do) so it is manageable.

He thought in 3 years (by 2017) all Pro tournaments would be on 10 fts also.


It’s too bad he fell by the wayside of what he originally wanted to do.
steve - I didn't hear anybody really bitching about anything this year. anybody who wanted to match up (that I know of) was able to do so (granted, you might have to wait until 11 or midnight), but we had members who had a table in the action room every time I meandered by..... wasn't hard to hop on a table and hit balls between matches either....

I think we should count our blessing a thing like DCC exists (tourneys/events seem to have a finite lifespan - hope DCC is going for many years to come....)

;)
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
4,381
It's just a function of time and space. Derby City started out as a gambler's jamboree. The tournament was just an excuse to get together. You could see that by the prize fund. That's why the entry fees were so low. Let everyone play. Charge less for banks than a spectator pass. Make all the spectators participants. But then the tournaments got so big they were taking up all the action tables. So this year, he raised the entry fees to lower the numbers of players so he could finish on time and the pros that play could still make their nut for the nine days, and those that wanted to play each other in action matches would still have tables. Don't get me wrong. He'd love to have double the space, but it doesn't exist. He's searched all over America for the right space. It doesn't exist. So he makes the best of Louisville, which is also next to his factory so he can use all his help during the tournament and they sleep in their own beds and don't need to travel across the country. If you take the whole tournament into consideration, who has every done a tournament so well?
right.

let's be honest.....there are 8 - 10 players in the world who will win banks and/or one pocket (maybe a few more for 9 ball). everyone else is just tourney fodder and there for their own motivations......
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
784
If a pro can make enough to pay his nut, and get a chance at gambling and making some money, he's happy. The 25K added in each event allows them to pay down deep enough to make sure most pros or stake horses can at least pay their expenses. And with so many action guys at the event, most pros are at least going to get a chance to make a score during the nine days. And isn't that the whole reason for Derby? More than a few gamblers won 50K this year, and it isn't even over. The rest of us love the atmosphere, and get our recommended yearly allowance of action and railbirding during the event. There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think Derby is working out ok.
 

TxOnePocket

Well-Known-Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
78
I would add IMO that the dead money is what supports a tournament like this, and the pool world in general, without it you couldn't afford to make a contract with a venue like they have.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
784
No doubt. But from 408 to 365 is ok. Only 60-90 pros compete. The tournament is very healthy and increasing the buy in was needed for the long term health of the one pocket event. At $160 x 365, you get a minimum of $56,000 plus the $25,000 added which makes the prize fund $81,000, by far the largest prize fund in a one pocket event on earth. A lot of that(70-80%) is dead money, and will still be. The pros should be happy and the amateurs still get to play their idols every year.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,195
Greg did two big events in Tunica, Miss. The venue had plenty of room and hotel rooms. It was actually easier to get there than to the Indiana locale. But he didn't want to take the time and losses for it to build. It was well attended for the usual 3 disciplines, but he'd counted on many more league players to play in the league events. They didn't come. I think the weather was a factor too. A winter event in Miss. would be better, just as a summer event in Indiana would be.

I think he'd be willing to travel, but there are just not that many casino venues available. There are plenty of non-casino venues, but with them he wouldn't get the deal he has with Ceasars, nor would the hotels be as handy.
 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,066
Greg did two big events in Tunica, Miss. The venue had plenty of room and hotel rooms. It was actually easier to get there than to the Indiana locale. But he didn't want to take the time and losses for it to build. It was well attended for the usual 3 disciplines, but he'd counted on many more league players to play in the league events. They didn't come. I think the weather was a factor too. A winter event in Miss. would be better, just as a summer event in Indiana would be.

I think he'd be willing to travel, but there are just not that many casino venues available. There are plenty of non-casino venues, but with them he wouldn't get the deal he has with Ceasars, nor would the hotels be as handy.
Harrahs closed the casino in Tunica right after and it was going to be closing no matter what the tournament did.

It was a dead property so that event was off the board before it began.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,343
It was well attended for the usual 3 disciplines,
One of us is remembering differently. I think lots of the top players were missing because it was was in the middle of that "Money Ball" attempt.

Edit: Ah, yea, Joe reminded me... "Bonus Ball."
 
Last edited:

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
784
Greg did two big events in Tunica, Miss. The venue had plenty of room and hotel rooms. It was actually easier to get there than to the Indiana locale. But he didn't want to take the time and losses for it to build. It was well attended for the usual 3 disciplines, but he'd counted on many more league players to play in the league events. They didn't come. I think the weather was a factor too. A winter event in Miss. would be better, just as a summer event in Indiana would be.

I think he'd be willing to travel, but there are just not that many casino venues available. There are plenty of non-casino venues, but with them he wouldn't get the deal he has with Ceasars, nor would the hotels be as handy.
The players sold him out for Bonus ball.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,195
Harrahs closed the casino in Tunica right after and it was going to be closing no matter what the tournament did.

It was a dead property so that event was off the board before it began.
I never knew that. But the point is that Greg historically is not averse to traveling, it's just that there are few casinos that fit the bill and that will give him a deal.
 
Top